We write, we don’t plagiarise! Every answer is different no matter how many orders we get for the same assignment. Your answer will be 100% plagiarism-free, custom written, unique and different from every other student.
I agree to receive phone calls from you at night in case of emergency
Please share your assignment brief and supporting material (if any) via email here at: [email protected] after completing this order process.
No Plagiarism Guarantee - 100% Custom Written
Rickman, S., Johnson, A., & Miles, C. (2013). The impact of chewing gum resistance on immediate free recall. British Journal of Psychology, 104(3), 339-346.
Write a 1800 word essay critically appraising this paper (75% of the mark), and describing how it could be improved (25% of the mark). A PDF copy of this article is found in the Critical Analysis folder on learn.Gold. Please attach the Coursework Coversheet to the first page of your Critical Analysis Essay.
Your work should be in an essay format with introduction and conclusion. It should not have sub-headings within the text but you are recommended to cover all the following areas.
SUGGESTED ESSAY OUTLINE
Summary - Provide a summary of the article in 150-200 words in which you capture the essentials of what was done.
(a) What is the problem?
(b) What is the method?
(c) What is the outcome?
Problem - Why is it a problem? Where did it come from? What question is the experimenter trying to answer? Is the hypothesis clear? Is it well argued? Is it convincing?
Method - Is it clear and unambiguous? Could another method have been used? Could a better method have been used? Could you carry out a replication from this report? Is the design the most efficient for the purpose? What alternative designs might have been employed?
Outcome - Is the Results section clear? Is the analysis unambiguous? Are the tests appropriate? Did the experimenter answer the question? What further questions are raised by the outcome? What experiments might be done to answer them?
Discussion – Are the inferences from result justified? Well argued? Do they advance our knowledge?
Suggested improvements – What could be improved? Was the paper well written and organised? Can you think of a better experimental design? (Better stimuli? More trials? Different participants?) Would you recommend a different statistical analysis?
Conclusion - Was the paper clear? Convincing? Important?
Chapter 5 and 6 of
Bell, P., Staines, P. & Mitchell, J. (2001). Evaluating, doing and writing research in psychology. London: Sage
Checklists on pp: 29-30, 61, 92-94
Haslam, A. & McGrarty, C (2014). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. London: Sage